In 2025, Georgia passed tort‑reform measures that directly impact negligent security cases—claims where a crime victim sues a business or property owner for failing to provide reasonable security. The new rules narrow when owners can be held liable and make it easier to shift blame to the criminal.
What negligent security cases involve
Negligent security is a type of premises‑liability claim. Typical examples include:
- A tenant robbed in a dark, poorly secured apartment parking lot
- A shopper attacked outside a store in an area with prior violent incidents
- A bar patron assaulted in a lot where fights are common and no one monitors the area
The victim alleges the owner knew, or should have known, about crime risks and failed to take reasonable precautions—lighting, cameras, patrols, locks, or warnings. Historically, the key question was whether the attack was reasonably foreseeable based on prior similar crimes and what the owner knew.
Tighter foreseeability standards
The 2025 reforms effectively narrow when a third‑party criminal attack is considered foreseeable.
In practice, that means:
- Specific prior crimes matter more. Plaintiffs must point to prior incidents similar to the one at issue (robberies for robbery cases, assaults for assaults), not just “high crime” in the general area.
- Time and distance limits. Courts are pushed to focus on incidents within a closer radius and more recent time frame, rather than broad neighborhood crime histories stretching back years.
- Credit for documented security steps. If an owner can show it responded to earlier problems with better lighting, cameras, or patrols, courts are more inclined to find that it exercised ordinary care even though the crime still happened.
For victims, generic crime statistics or vague “dangerous area” evidence are less likely to carry the day. Detailed proof of similar prior crimes on or very near the property, and of what the owner did—or didn’t do—in response, becomes critical.
Mandatory fault apportionment to the criminal
Georgia already allowed juries to divide fault among multiple actors. Under the 2025 changes, that concept is central in negligent security cases:
- Juries are expected to assign fault not only to the property owner, but also to the criminal assailant and any other responsible parties (such as security contractors).
- The greater the fault attributed to the criminal, the less the owner pays, even if liability is found.
- If a jury heavily blames the business and gives the criminal only a token share, judges now have clearer authority to question that allocation and, in some situations, order a new trial.
Defense lawyers will emphasize the deliberate, intentional nature of the criminal’s conduct to increase the assailant’s share of blame. Plaintiffs’ counsel must be ready to show how systemic security failures meaningfully contributed to the opportunity for the crime.
Stronger tools for trial judges
The reforms also give trial courts more room to disturb verdicts that appear inconsistent with the new framework. After a plaintiff’s win, defendants can argue:
- The crime was not foreseeable under the tightened standards, or
- The jury did not assign enough fault to the criminal compared to the owner.
If the judge agrees, the court can grant a new trial or reduce the award. That adds a layer of post‑trial risk even in cases where the jury appears to side strongly with the victim.
What this means for victims and their lawyers
For crime victims and plaintiff’s attorneys, the practical effects include:
- More front‑loaded investigation. You need solid evidence of prior, similar incidents, the owner’s knowledge, and specific security lapses (broken locks, non‑functioning cameras, no patrols) that persisted despite warnings.
- Higher costs and complexity. Expect more reliance on security experts, crime‑mapping, and motion practice on foreseeability and apportionment before trial.
- Greater post‑verdict uncertainty. Even a favorable jury verdict may face aggressive challenges on how fault was allocated and whether the crime should have been deemed foreseeable.
Borderline negligent‑security cases—thin crime history, some security measures in place—are now harder to win and less attractive to pursue.
What this means for property owners and insurers
For owners, managers, and insurers, the new regime offers both protection and pressure:
- Stronger defenses. Narrower foreseeability and mandatory fault apportionment make it easier to defeat weak claims or significantly reduce damages.
- Increased value of documentation. Written policies, incident logs, maintenance records, and evidence of security upgrades are now powerful tools for showing “ordinary care.”
- Continuing risk for lax properties. Where there are repeated incidents, complaints, and no meaningful security response, juries can still find liability, and the new rules will not save a chronically negligent owner.
Regular security assessments and good paper trails are now as important as insurance coverage in managing negligent‑security exposure.
Key takeaways
Georgia’s 2025 tort reform does not eliminate negligent security cases, but it tilts the field:
- Victims must bring more specific, stronger evidence of foreseeability and security failures.
- Businesses can more easily argue that crimes were not reasonably foreseeable and that most blame lies with the criminal.
- Judges have enhanced authority to police verdicts that place disproportionate fault on property owners.
For anyone injured in a criminal attack on commercial property in Georgia—and for the businesses that own or manage those properties—the message is simple: negligent‑security litigation is now more technical, more evidence‑driven, and more dependent on what can be proven about crime patterns and security decisions before the attack ever occurred.
Disclaimer
The information provided on this blog is for general informational purposes only and is
not intended to serve as legal advice. While I am a paralegal, I am not a licensed attorney, and the content shared here should not be construed as such.
No attorney-client relationship is formed through the use of this blog or by any communication with me. For specific legal advice tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney who is licensed to practice law in your jurisdiction.
I strive to ensure that the information presented is accurate and up-to-date; however, I make no representations or warranties regarding the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability, or availability of any information contained on this blog. Any reliance you place on such information is strictly at your own risk.
Thank you for visiting my blog, and please feel free to reach out with any questions or comments!